May 24, 2010

This is my last post to the Executive Advisory Blog. Here forward I will be posting to the Gartner Blog Network.My
inaugural post is “Challenged by relevance? Make EA disappear”.This post embodies my hope for the enterprise
architecture discipline (and for that matter other business disciplines).That hope is to contextualize messages,
approaches, methods and other things we create to the decisions that must be
made and the people who are making them.

All of us must learn to be deliberate in our understanding
about the various types of people in our organization.We must be deliberate in our actions to
promote consistent communication after we decide what that communication needs
to be and how it needs to be contextualized.Only then can we choose methods and approaches that are truly helpful to
the communication and the decisions that need to be rendered.

May 16, 2010

One of the side effects of the Gartner purchase of Burton is that my blog can now be found here. All on the Gartner blog network. It takes a move to realize how much stuff you've accumulated over the years, and a blog move means re-evaluating your accumulated opinions and biases. There's lots to talk about - join the conversation!

April 19, 2010

As a general rule, IT is not very unionized, although there are exceptions. I have been lucky in my career - as a software developer (25 years ago) I never had to cross a picket line, or participate in a job action. As an IT manager and CIO (over the past 10 years), I rarely had to take into account union actions (the exception being the collateral damage from nurses unions and hospital service employees). The relationship between company management and unionization has always been a curious one for me, and one with which I have had ambiguous feelings.

At a recent party, I fell into a conversation with an older, retired gentleman. He was engaging, and had a fair amount of knowledge about technology and the telecommunications industry - which we talked about. The conversation migrated to one about the future of the country (vis a vis the healthcare bill recently passed), and how the US is bankrupt if you take into account unfunded liabilities - such as pensions and retiree benefits. This fellow thought that the day of reckoning is near, and that the level of funding for many pension plans - state, federal, and at some Fortune 500 companies - was a crime.

In the same breath, as a retiree he acknowledged that he was a recipient of the largess of the past 50 years - for which he feels fortunate. But this is where the conversation took an interesting turn. When I asked him what he did for work, he fessed up: he was the most senior union representative for the telecommunications workers union, and was singly responsible for negotiating those pension benefits - for which he was proud.

Talk about cognitive dissonance! How, I asked, did he sync up his life's work with his assessment of where we are today? His response was hostile: the senior executives across the table caved and because of that are fully responsible for the current issues. His job was to work the best deal possible, even if he knew that it could lead to the demise of the company, much less the country. The big picture was not his concern. If company CEOs, such as at Verizon, had stood their ground and done their job, we wouldn't be where we are today -- on the verge of financial chaos. The blame, he said, lies at management's feet.

My role at Gartner does not involve corporate management - but my mindset and training as a CIO has always been to consider the big picture, to avoid black and white thinking, and to value collaboration. Burton's Executive Advisory Program raises the level of discourse in IT above pure technology decision-making, and address the short and long-term implications; and to make IT decisions in a business context for IT practitioners, as well as senior management teams. Chris Howard does this by talking about "Post Modern IT"; Mike Rollings addresses the need to move away from black and white thinking in Enterprise Architecture; Michael Disabato looks at ITIL and makes the case against ITIL as a pure cookbook approach to IT services.

This union leader's perspective has been adjusted to avoid what would certainly be a crisis for his self-esteem, his value of his life's work, and his legacy. As he spoke, I saw the struggle in his eyes, words, actions. Company executives that were across the table hold some degree of accountability, too - but the real shame in what has transpired over the past 50 years has been our collective inability to rise above individual self-interest. This, like the real estate bubble and CDOs were in the recent "Great Recession", is the foundation for the next major financial crisis.

In IT, the lessons are similar - a focus on individual technologies and architectures alone without context is just preparation for long-term failure. IT practitioners and IT leaders alike need guidance and perspective.

April 02, 2010

Back in the day, I once had a boss that was fairly savvy, and a senior exec at a major insurer (all of you long-time followers can figure out who/where). The year was 1984 and the topic was healthcare reform. He said "There's too many vested interests, and too many people making money, for much to change substantively in the healthcare system".

26 years later I am much grayer, older, and (unfortunately) unhealthier. And most of my career has, in one way or another, held his maxim to be true.

I remembered that quote when Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, and it looked like the end of yet another run at healthcare reform. I wasn't alone. Angela Braly, the CEO of Wellpoint, had an epic interview in the Wall Street Journal that said effectively the same thing. I agreed in some ways with Ms. Braly - a wasted opportunity, an ineffective bill at addressing root causes of healthcare spending growth, a chance that reform would make things worse and not better.

BUT THEN IT HAPPENED.

Putting aside all the politics, the arguments about BIG government, the tax and balance sheet impacts, and even the philosophical underpinnings of what this means to be "An American" (cowboy boots and all) - I do believe that this moment in time reflects a maturation of our country.

What was really intriguing to me about Braly's comments was not the analysis of the healthcare bill and it's good or bad points, but her view about the role of insurers. Insurers have gone through this cycle as healthcare financiers, healthcare deliverers (the 90s had much discussion about building delivery systems), and now seem to be settling into the role of information brokers.

This is huge, and a very important insight by Ms. Braly. It's something we have been talking about at Burton Group - the primacy of information management, under the nom-de-plumes of "Business Intelligence" or "Business Process Management". It's a business model that will have huge impacts on healthcare and healthcare IT. We'll see significant growth in the whole healthcare information system - from data capture, to storage, to analysis. Google and Microsoft see it, and it may be the only way left for healthcare insurers to compete.

Kudos to Angela Braly on recognizing it. Sympathies to her as well for such a poor forecast on the future of the healthcare bill. Stay away from the horse track.

This year, holy week and passover coincide. For Christians, its about death and re-birth. For Jews, the promise of redemption. The ramp-up to this week saw all this happen with healthcare reform. Goodbye, 1984.

March 17, 2010

It occurred to me that it has been a while since I blogged about some notable books that I've recently read. So let me focus on 3.

"Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich . Quick read about the early days of "TheFacebook". College meets entrepreneurship. I was particularly engaged because my son was an early pariah of Mark Zuckerberg - got banned because he used Facebook as a marketing tool for an election campaign. Today that wouldn't be frowned upon; BTW - my son has been reinstated.

"The Future of Management" by Gary Hamill. Now about 3 years old, this is destined to be a classic. Me thinks Gary goes a bit overboard about the impact of social computing/crowd-sourcing/democratization...but his points are valid. For anyone interested in management strategies - this is a must-read.

Finally, "The Opposite of Luck; Achieving IT Service Quality" by Chris Oleson, Mike Hagan, and Christophe DeMoss. Scorecards, SLAs, OLAs, Goals Matrices, managing maintenance. A pretty good primer on IT service best practices, comprehensive, lots of examples. I have read a similar self-published manual on IT management from a good friend (Bill Davis - former CEO of Cabletron, called "The Foundation Guide - Management Tools for the Serious Executive"). Along with other, similar, books (Like "The First 90 Days", or "The CIO Handbook"), I found this manual to be detailed, and a good desktop reference for ITIL-like efforts. Through the examples, it provides some really good insight into ways of addressing metrics and the day to day operation of an IT department.

March 02, 2010

Copernicus, born 19 February 1473, started a scientific revolution by showing that the motion of celestial objects can be explained without putting the earth in the center of the universe. A person gazing into the sky from earth perceives the stars rotating around the earth. But Copernicus looked deeper. He found that looking at the situation from a different perspective (from the Sun) proved otherwise. His proof through observation overturned the perception. This one discovery opened up a world of possibility in astronomy.

We need a Copernican revolution for enterprise architecture. For an example look no further than the idea of looking for a better name for EA.

"Q1: If Enterprise Architecture as practiced by most is really IT Architecture and Enterprise Architecture is not a term that will be embraced outside the IT organization, what should we call it?

Tim’s Answer: Although it is not as catchy, my first thought was Enterprise Planning & Optimization. Until something sexier or more appealing comes along, this is my suggestion. "

This question came from the Q&A in my keynote "Enterprise Architecture - Disappearing into the Business". I was asked "if you are recommending that we stop focusing on EA then what do we call it"? I responded that I don't care what you call it; I care that you do it. If you focus on the right things NOBODY WILL CARE WHAT YOU CALL IT.

Tim and I had a brief discussion afterwards and he pointed out a suggestion from my talk based on my definition of EA -- a planning, optimization and design discipline that is fundamentally based on the identification of dependencies, implications and constraints. While I am flattered that he chose my words, I don't want you to call it "Enterprise Planning & Optimization" unless you are actually doing it inside your organization. We do not need another term to become meaningless like "enterprise architecture".

If your organization looks at EA as a techno-focused activity, then it is not because of the name you gave the function. Most likely you are perceived as techno-focused because you are acting this way! Also, odds are that someone in the organization has begun to fill the void left by the techno-focus on EA. If so, then connect with them to enrich the result. Thinking that a new name will solve your problems is nothing more than a control game. The enterprise architecture community must let go of the idea that they are in control. Control has never worked as a means to establish a discipline.

The best advice - stop focusing on EA like it is the center of the business universe. Change your focus to being focused on business outcomes and to influencing better decisions that lead to to those outcomes. Seek out ways to influence the decisions that occur (or need to occur) in the delivery chain. Focus on helping the organization apply the discipline. The best way to establish a new meaning to EA in your organization is by redefining what you are doing!

Come to Catalyst: If you would like information about presenting at our Catalyst conference in Prague 19-22 April or to submit a proposal see our presenters page.

To get a discounted price of €995 use the promo code “INSIDER” during registration.

March 01, 2010

Today I am working on my presentations for Burton Group's Catalyst conference "Forging Ahead: Navigating the New Normal" in Prague April 19-22. Joe Bugajski and I will be doing the keynote for the business intelligence (BI) track -- What Can IT Do to Deliver Business Insight – Not Just Intelligence?

BI is 25 years old, yet its promise of important insight eludes most organisations. CEOs list BI as a top initiative and simultaneously lament poor results from large BI investments. One reason for this incongruence is the detrimental effects of the automation mindset and the pursuit of efficiency. BI is aimed at the wrong thing.

For the last 239 years organizations have been applying automation as their primary tool of choice to improve production and efficiency. An automation mindset erupted with the dawn of the steam engine in 1771 and was honed to razor sharpness by the management revolution started by Frederick Winslow Taylor. This mindset has shaped how many have applied BI. For most organizations, BI is nothing more than a glorified reporting tool to examine efficiency. They use BI to look in the rear-view mirror and learn about the past, but most are unable to predict upcoming events or learn lessons that will help them make decisions to navigate uncertainty.

The need for insight is not the tail (of technology) wagging the dog (business). Management innovation is reshaping organizations perspectives about the devotion to efficiency where the goal is to reduce human involvement. Profitable innovators are not driven solely by efficiency; they look for ways to magnify human involvement. They realize that the reshaping of organizations and management called for by the new normal thrives on how well they can foster the development of insight by humans.

Joe and I believe that BI must trend toward a new definition – Business Insight. Insight represents the opposite goal of automation, and it should reshape the primary purpose of most information technology organizations. We hope you can attend Catalyst to discuss this significant shift in thinking.

If you would like information about presenting at our Catalyst conference or to submit a proposal see our presenters page.

To get a discounted price of €995 use the promo code “INSIDER” during registration.

February 19, 2010

I often speak about IT trends, and one of those is what we at Burton/Gartner call “externalization”. Invariably the question of loss of control for outsourcing engagements comes up.

One of my key points is that the ability to have multiple sources for work, partners, supplies, services is just a fact of life – get used to it – and often a business decision. It involves core/context thinking. But it does have some important implications on IT skill sets, and organizational planning.

Which is exactly what Jay Leek (from Nokia) talks about in this conversation I had with him. Jay has made creative use of external sourcing options for IT security needs at Nokia. Have a listen: